The PSB, the Diesels and Sherlock Holmes

Bulldog asleep

Waiting for the Public Service Board

About a week ago, on May 21, I blogged about the fact that Vermont Yankee needs another back-up diesel, and the Vermont Public Service Board (PSB) has been dragging its feet about giving permission to install that diesel.  Entergy has an NRC deadline to install the diesel, and therefore, Entergy sued the PSB in federal court.  The court hearing is scheduled for June 4, which is Tuesday, and coming up fast.

By denying the diesel permit, the PSB is interfering with nuclear safety, an area of federal jurisdiction. My post was A Court Case With A Deadline: The Black Start Diesels. 

That post included the "Breaking News" that the PSB hearing officer for the diesel docket had recommended that PSB grant the permit for the diesel.  The Department of Public Service also supports granting the permit for the diesel.  Here's a link to the Vermont Digger article by Andrew Stein on these recommendations that the PSB approve the diesel.

However, these were only recommendations. The PSB itself did not rule on this matter. The Vermont Digger article quoted Jim Sinclair of Entergy: “While we appreciate and agree with the hearing officer’s recommendation, we remain uncertain as to when the Board will rule,” he said. “Therefore, we will have to determine how this may affect the federal court hearing.”

Will the PSB Rule? Time Passes

The Vermont Digger article appeared on May 20, and the hearing is June 4.  I'll be blunt.  I was waiting for the PSB to make a statement.  I thought PSB might say:

•  "We agree with our hearing officer and here's your diesel permit. " 

or

• "To heck with our hearing officer's recommendations. We don't hand out diesel permits to outfits like you, and we'll see you in court."

But, so far, nothing has happened.  At this point, it looks like the PSB is happy to ignore the hearing officer and the Department of Public Service.  The court date is approaching fast.

I waited. I wanted to write a blog post about this, as soon as there was some news.

Sherlock Holmes and Me

Then I realized that the lack of news--is also news! Non-action is also information.

To quote Sherlock Holmes:

"You consider that to be important?" he [Inspector Gregory] asked.
 "Exceedingly so."
 "Is there any point to which you would wish to draw my attention?"
 "To the curious incident of the dog in the night-time."
 "The dog did nothing in the night-time."
 "That was the curious incident," remarked Sherlock Holmes.

The Memoirs of Sherlock Holmes (1893) : Silver Blaze

In the Holmes case, the fact the "dog did nothing in the night-time" means that a stranger did not commit the crime.  If a stranger had been there, the dog would have barked. Holmes concluded that the crime was an inside job.

To me, the fact that the PSB has done nothing means that they are happy to go to court June 4, even though (IMHO) they are pretty sure to lose on this one. In my opinion, this shows they are heavily influenced by politics.  I think that the more often the PSB is in court, the more political credibility they think they have with the Shumlin administration and the Vermont legislature: We TRIED to shut that plant down! We really did.  They sued us all the time, but we kept trying. 

In my opinion, this non-action on the hearing officer's statement shows that political credibility is what matters to the PSB.  The PSB is supposed to be a non-partisan board, but this incident of the Dog in the Nighttime indicates something else. The Public Service Board is ignoring its own hearing officer and the State's Department of Public Service. It seems happy to be dragged into court.

A political agenda is the best explanation I can come up with.  I welcome readers' comments with other explanations.

Will Davis and Me

And here's a comment to start you off!  Will Davis hosted the most recent nuclear blog Carnival at his Atomic Power Review site.  The Carnival included a link to my post about the diesels, and Will Davis had this to say about it:

Will Davis

Atomic Power Review Note:  Regarding the Yes Vermont Yankee post linked and described above...  Just how many times in this post-Fukushima world would one EVER expect to find any group, anywhere, that could possibly justify campaigning AGAINST adding a back up diesel generator at a nuclear plant site?

I think that says it all.  I hope to receive more comments, but it will be hard to beat Davis's pithy comment.

And Yet Another Lawsuit

In related news, a group of intervenors just sued the PSB in Vermont Supreme Court, claiming the PSB should "enforce their own orders" and close the plant.  Here's the May 25 article by Bob Audette in the Brattleboro Reformer on that suit:  Groups Ask Vermont Court to Affirm PSB Rulings on VY.

This suit bears an uncanny resemblance to a lawsuit the Vermont Supreme Court turned down in March of this year.  Here's the Andrew Stein article in Vermont Digger  on March 28: Vermont Supreme Court Denies New England Coalition's Petition to Close Vermont Yankee.  Or, as I blogged on March 28 in Court Won't Close Plant During PSB Hearings. Since the Vermont Yankee matter is active in both federal court and the PSB, the Vermont Supreme Court is unlikely to get involved.  Courts don't like to step on each other's toes.

Frankly, I don't get this intervenor latest suit.  It looks frivolous to me: it looks like the same contentions as the lawsuit in March.  Why are they doing this? However, I freely admit I am not a lawyer, so there may be a reason. Once again, comments are welcome.

Earnings, Lawsuits, NRC Meeting: Playing Catch-up

So much action, so little time!  In the past few days or coming up soon:

• Entergy filed its first-quarter earnings report.
• Entergy sued about the state delaying permission for Vermont Yankee diesel generators.
• Yearly NRC meeting on Vermont Yankee is scheduled for Tuesday, April 30 in Brattleboro.  

Frankly, each of these could be its own blog post, but that is not going to happen very quickly.  So here's a little catch-up!

More catch-up soon on Howard Shaffer's presentation yesterday to the legislative committee, but that will be its own blog post. His presentation went very well.

First Quarter Earnings

In late March, I wrote a post about Vermont Yankee Financial Analysis: The Write-Down and More.  In this post, I noted that Entergy had taken a "write-down" (decreased the official valuation) on the Vermont Yankee power plant in April 2012, and that an analyst report said that the plant was quite likely to be closed by Entergy.  However, that same report considered the rise in natural gas prices to be "recent rally" caused by some kind of "perceived supply constraint."  The report claimed that this natural gas supply constraint would be easily remedied by FERC and ISO-NE actions. 

At the time, I wrote that I didn't see anything in the Entergy's reports or the analyst report that showed the merchant-generator nuclear plants to be operating at a loss.  Also, I said I didn't believe the rising price of natural gas was a "recent rally" that would be easily fixed. In other words, I believed that the merchant plants were running profitably 

Well, yeah.  I was right.  (Note. I am not in the stock-evaluation business. I just like to boast when I'm right.) 

 The Entergy press release on its first quarter earnings show that earnings went from  $0.44 a share first quarter last year to $0.94 cents a share first quarter this year.  The press release also mentions Vermont Yankee's breaker-to-breaker run.  

Lots more information is available in the earnings report and the earnings call transcript at Seeking Alpha.  The regulated utility business earned $0.69/share (as-reported figure) and the merchant plants earned $0.46/ share. In other words, the merchant plants made a very significant input to Entergy's profitability.

Basically, the rise in gas prices led to these increased profits. Nationwide, gas prices doubled this year: gas prices went from below $2 MMCF in April 2012 to above $4 MMCF in April 2013. Also, there were local supply constraints (very few pipelines). During the cold weather, pipeline constraints led to amazingly high local natural gas prices, and therefore to high grid prices and high earnings for the merchant plants.  No surprises there.  

Most of the earnings call ignored the merchant plants (except for discussing the tragic accident in Arkansas and its implications). The call focused on a planned merger or spin-off or something (I didn't follow it) of part of Entergy's regulated transmission business in the South.

New Lawsuit

Vermont Yankee and Vernon Dam

Also in March, I wrote about Vermont Yankee's need for a new diesel generator: Black start, Intervention and some links.  Vermont Yankee needs the generator in  order to meet the NRC's black start requirements when Vernon Dam is no longer considered a black start facility. (Black start facilities are charged with re-energizing the grid after a major regional power outage.) Vermont Yankee applied to the Vermont Public Service Board for permission (Certificate of Public Good) to install this generator.  I wrote that intervenors had been allowed on the docket, and were complicating and delaying the granting of this certificate.

Well, on Wednesday, the PSB issued a scheduling order which showed that the docket will not be resolved until considerably AFTER the date that Vermont Yankee needs to begin constructing the pad for the diesel. On Thursday (yesterday) Vermont Yankee sued the state in federal court. Entergy said that the PSB was interfering with nuclear safety, a federal mandate. Andrew Stein of Vermont Digger has a good article on this issue: Entergy files new lawsuit against Vermont, this time over diesel backup power permit. 

Update: The Digger article now has a link to the Entergy filing.  Interestingly, Entergy asked TransCanada to keep Vernon Dam as a blackstart facility.  That is, Entergy asked TransCanada to contract with Entergy to keep the dam blackstart-ready (Entergy would pay for this, no doubt). However, TransCanada refused to make this contract.  This info is on page 15 of the document linked above.

NRC Meeting

On April 30, at Brattleboro Union High School, the NRC will hold its annual meeting to discuss its Vermont Yankee safety assessment. The meeting will begin at 5:30 with an open house and follow with a question and answer period. Here's the NRC announcement.

Last year's NRC meeting was very unpleasant, in an atmosphere close to mob rule.  I wrote about it at ANS Nuclear Cafe, with the title NRC Meeting in Brattleboro: The Politics of Intimidation.

Yes.  I am going again this year.  I believe in showing up.

NRC leaving meeting, 2012
Police protecting them from protestors
that had surrounded their seats at the
front of the room

The opponents will show up also, I am sure.  Or not.  I am not so sure. A letter by Nancy Braus in The Commons (Brattleboro newspaper) claims the NRC doesn't listen and is "not our voice."   It claims we have wasted our time preparing questions and sharing our education with  the NRC. The letter is described as follows: This letter is written on behalf of the Safe and Green Campaign, an antinuclear organization comprised of people who live in the evacuation zone around Vermont Yankee.

Personally, I can assure you that the NRC listens to everyone--the letter-writer here seems to think that "listen to us" means "obey us." Oh well.  

Anyhow, the fact that the letter was written "on behalf of" the major local anti-nuclear campaign makes me wonder whether some of them will boycott the meeting, and maybe there will be less intimidation this year.    I hope so.

Update: Whoops. I was wrong. It's the opposite of a boycott.  I just looked at my home-town paper, and the campaign is running a carpool from White River Junction to Brattleboro for the meeting.  So I expect a big opponent presence at the meeting. There may have been carpools other years, but if so, the carpools weren't announced in my local paper. 

Black Start, Intervention, plus some links

Vermont Yankee
 Vernon Dam in the foreground

Vernon Dam and the Diesel Generator, Again

ISO-NE recently reclassified Vernon Dam.  The dam is no longer a Black Start facility, that is, it is not one of power plants charged with re-energizing the grid after an extensive power outage.  Because of this reclassification, Vermont Yankee may (or may not) have to obtain a new diesel generator, and may (or may not) need a Certificate of Public Good (CPG) for the generator.   You can read my post about the Vernon Dam reclassification at: Black Start, BlackOut, and Diesels: Some Clarity

In all this uncertainty, two things are certain:

• Vermont Yankee applied for a Certificate of Public Good for the diesels
• One of the old-line intervenors, New England Coalition against Nuclear Pollution, took this as an opportunity to intervene, and was granted intervenor's status.

A recent article by Bob Audette in the Brattleboro Reformer describes this latest intervention Board Grants NEC's Request to Intervene in VY Diesel Case.  The article quotes the Public Service Board hearing officer, Lars Bang-Jensen, as follows:

Bang-Jensen noted that the PSB hasn't even concluded whether it "can or should" grant a CPG for the diesel generator "on any schedule." The diesel generator application is being processed on the assumption that it will not become effective unless the extended operation CPG is approved, he wrote.

And so, in Vermont, with the help of intervenors, a simple request for safety equipment becomes a complex issue.

----------

Some links worth following:

Carnival: The 148th Carnival of Nuclear Energy Bloggers is up at Hiroshima Syndrome. Leslie Corrice has done a great job on this post.  I don't think there is anywhere else on the web where you can find so comprehensive a collection of pro-nuclear retrospectives on Fukushima.  (The Carnival covers other topics, including Vermont Yankee, but the Fukushima coverage is spectacular.)


Podcast: Rod Adams has been hosting Atomic Show podcasts for years.  More than seven years, as a matter of fact, and this week he hosted a spectacular podcast, Atomic Show #200, with atomic communicators and experts on three continents (Australia, Europe and North America).  Congratulations to Rod for his unceasing and effective efforts in favor of nuclear energy.  Enjoy the podcast!

Three Vermont Yankee Hearings: The Week of Living Lawyerly

The week of January 14, there are three different hearings about Vermont Yankee in three separate courts and on three separate subjects.  It is the Week of Living Lawyerly.

The hearings are in the Federal Appeals Court, the Vermont Supreme Court, and  the Public Service Board. (The Public Service Board hearing concerns the need for a new diesel generator.)

First Hearing: Federal Court

What: Federal Court of Appeals Hearing on State and Entergy Appeals

Where: 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals (in New York City)

When: January 14, Monday

Why: Judge Murtha ruled in favor of Entergy in the main federal case, and the state appealed the ruling. The state mainly challenged the part about pre-empting nuclear safety issues.  Entergy also placed two appeals before the circuit court.  The first appeal was about spent fuel rods, and the second appeal was about the NEC suit in Vermont Supreme Court.  This second appeal is discussed below, in the Supreme Court section. 

What is at stake: In the main issue, whether the Circuit Court will (or will not) uphold the Murtha ruling.  

What is at stake, part two: Whichever way the Circuit Court rules, both sides say they will appeal the Circuit Court ruling to the United States Supreme Court.  

Comments by the Blogger:

The Circuit Court calendar shows that both side have a full fifteen minutes each to present their cases.  This length of time seems to be standard for arguments before this court.  I am not a lawyer, but to me, this means that the written material in the docket is the important material.

In terms of the Entergy appeals,  Murtha granted the first appeal, and has just recently turned down the second appeal (about NEC and the Vermont Supreme Court).  I blogged about the turn-down of the appeal against the NEC case in  Hot Potato Continued.

I have some, but not all, of the docket material for the federal case (and the Public Service Board case) posted at Dockets for Public Service Board and Courts on the Vermont Energy Education Project website.

The State asked for "expedited oral arguments" in this case, with the arguments to be presented "as soon as November."  Entergy asked for more time.  The court granted the State of Vermont request for expedited oral arguments, but the arguments are being heard in January.  (Don't ask me...I have no idea what this implies.  I just thought I would mention it.)
---------------------------------------

Vermont Supreme Court

Second Hearing:  Vermont Supreme Court

What:  Hearing on NEC Request to Vermont Supreme Court

Where: Vermont Supreme Court in Montpelier Vermont

When: January 16, Wednesday

What is at stake: A long-time plant opponent, New England Coalition against Nuclear Pollution (NEC) has asked the Vermont Supreme Court to step in and order Vermont Yankee closed. They want the Vermont Supreme Court to issue this order in accordance with a clause in the sale agreement from 2002.  The Public Service Board  and the Department of Public Service have asked the Vermont Supreme Court to deny this request.

What is at stake, part two:  If the Supreme Court were to issue an order to close down Vermont Yankee, everyone expects Vermont Yankee to appeal to federal court.

Comments by the Blogger:

I blogged about this subject extensively in Hot Potato, and Hot Potato Continued. I think that this case is a hot potato that the Public Service Board wants to throw to someone else.

UPDATE: I have put the November 29 Public Service Board statement and the Entergy request for dismissal on a new Vermont Supreme Court filings page at the Energy Education Project site.

---------------

Emergency backup diesel generator
At a sewage treatment plant

Third Hearing: Public Service Board 

What: Hearing on Certificate of Public Good for Station Blackout Diesel Generator Docket #7964

Where: Public Service Board Hearing Room, Bank Building, Montpelier

When: January 17, Thursday

What is at stake: Will Vermont Yankee be allowed to install a new back-up diesel generator?   Vernon Dam will no longer be considered a Black Start facility by ISO-NE. (I blogged about this in Black Start, Black Out and Diesels, Some Clarity) Since the dam will not be maintained as a Black Start facility, the NRC will no longer consider it to be qualified as a Station Blackout back-up facility.  (The dam is still there, of course, and Vermont Yankee still has a direct line to the dam.)  So Vermont Yankee needs a new station black-out back-up facility.  In most cases, this would be a stationary diesel generator.

What is at stake, part two:  In most cases, getting a new back-up diesel for a power plant would be a slam dunk.  However, the Public Service Board is concerned that if it grants a permit for this piece of safety equipment,  Vermont Yankee would continue to operate.

Wait! Whoops!  That was snarky of me.

Of course, I meant to say that the Public Service Board is concerned because

Normally, the Board would not consider a petition from a company that is not in compliance with existing Board orders, unless that company also demonstrated an intent to come  into compliance. Entergy VY has not indicated such an intent here.

That's a quote from the order, and you can read the entire Public Service Board order setting up the diesel-docket here.

It is important to note that "non-compliance with Board orders" basically means...the plant is still operating, after March 21, 2012, while hearings are on-going.  The Board has several dockets about the Certificate of Public Good, and the Board claims that, according to one of the dockets, the plant is not in compliance because a new Certificate of Public Good has not been yet been granted by the Public Service Board.

Comments by the Blogger

No comment.

Black Start, BlackOut and Diesels: Some Clarity

Vermont Yankee and Vernon Dam

This picture of Vermont Yankee shows the plant and Vernon Dam.  Vernon Dam has always been one of Vermont Yankee's potential sources of back-up power, along with the plant's own diesels, batteries and so forth.

Recently, the grid operator decided that, starting next year, Vernon Dam will no longer be "maintained as a black start unit." Due to that change, Vermont Yankee will have to ask the Public Service Board for permission (Certificate of Public Good) to buy a new diesel generator and pour a concrete slab to hold it.

Reading this material, it's hard to understand what is going on.  Does the plant need a new diesel generator for safety in blackout conditions? Is "blackout" the same as "black start"?

Intevenors Ready for Action

Whatever it means, the usual-suspect intervenors are getting set to intervene.  According to this article by Bob Audette in the Brattleboro Reformer, Ray Shadis of NEC has already offered his opinion, which includes the idea that "the state even today regulates certain aspects of existing emergency generators -- such as exhaust emissions, petroleum leaks and noise," he said.  Other groups are also considering intervening in the diesel placement.

Three Shades of Black

Blackout and blackstart are different. Grid blackout refers to the grid going down, and black start is about bringing the grid up again.  Confusingly, "station blackout" (not the same as grid  blackout) means that the grid is down AND the station's emergency diesels don't operate.  In other words, there are three shades of black: grid blackout, station blackout, and black start.

To avoid station blackout, all nuclear plants have other backup sources of power, all of which have to approved by the NRC.  At the end of the year, apparently, Vernon Dam will no longer be a black start plant, so the NRC will no longer approve it as a backup power source against Vermont Yankee station blackout.

Blackout 

All three "black" conditions start the same way: the grid goes down.  Power isn't flowing. The nuclear plant has a loss of offsite power. At that point, however the three terms diverge: blackout, station blackout, and black start  are different.

Nuclear plants have lost offsite power many times.  This is grid blackout. When this happens, the reactors scram automatically, because where are they going to send their energy?  No grid, no place to receive the  power.  At that point, the emergency diesels begin operating and cool the reactor.  This has happened many times all over the country.  That is grid blackout, and the plant takes care of itself.

It is important to note that the emergency diesels are not running the plant, and they are not sized to run the plant.  Operating the plant at full capacity takes a lot of power for pumps and so forth, and the plant uses grid or its own power for that work.  The emergency diesels are sized to keep the plant's core cool while the plant is off-line and generating only residual heat.  Vermont Yankee has two qualified emergency diesels, and it  also has a hard-wired connection to Vernon Dam, which has acted as a back-up source of emergency power.

If, for some reason, the plant diesels didn't start, the current next step would be Vernon Dam providing power.  Vernon Dam would prevent "station blackout."

However, the grid operator decided that Vernon Dam will lose its qualification as a Black Start station in the future. Vernon Dam will not be one of the "Black Start" stations that re-energizes the grid. Based on this grid operator decision on the future of Vernon Dam, the NRC decided Vernon Dam could not be a "station blackout" resource for Vermont Yankee in the future. (Note, Vernon Dam is still a qualified Black Start station right now..this is all about planning for the future.)

Black Start

Black Start refers to the grid.  When the grid is down, plants have to be brought on line to restart it.  There's an entire sequence of events to energize a grid, and I am beyond my depth to describe it all.  However, I do know that hydro plants have generally been  the "black start" plants.  It takes very little power to start a hydro plant (opening gates rather than starting big pumps) and then the hydro plant supplies power to the grid.  Next, other plants use the hydro power to start their pumps.  Eventually, the whole grid is re-energized.  The workers at Comerford Hydro plant first explained this to me when we visited the hydro plants on Energy Safari last year.  Wikipedia also has a good article on black start.

One of the reasons I like the picture of Vermont Yankee and Vernon Dam at the top of this post is to show the differences in power output. Vernon Dam, like all renewable sources, tends to be land-hungry.  The dam floods a large territory, and makes only 34 MW  of power.  Vermont Yankee makes 620 MW.

Small is Not Beautiful

The small size of Vernon Dam has become a problem to the ISO grid operator, Recently ISO-NE managers have decided that big plants, not small hydro plants, will become the black start plants.   As the Brattleboro Reformer article states: The current (ISO-NE) plan calls for smaller generators, such as the Vernon Hydro Dam, to go online first. The new plan calls for the biggest generators to startup first.

"Vermont Yankee currently credits the Vernon Hydro Dam as its NRC-required Station Blackout AC power source because the dam is a Blackstart facility," said Neil Sheehan, spokesman for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. "After the end of the year, the Vernon Hydro Dam will no longer be maintained as a Blackstart facility."

Apparently, when the grid operator decided that Vernon Dam will lose its Black Start qualification, the NRC decided that Vernon Dam was not going to be maintained well enough to be a source of backup power for Vermont Yankee  With the loss of Vernon Dam as a qualifying back-up, the plant will have to buy another diesel generator.  Vermont Yankee will keep its connection to Vernon Dam.  However, that connection will not "count" in the NRC assessment of plant safety.

Why The Change

Combined Cycle Gas Turbine
Schematic from InfoPix

According to the Wikipedia article and the Brattleboro Reformer article, ISO-NE has been revising its black start procedures and incentives.   I didn't quite understand why ISO has made this change: hydro plants are traditional black start plants, and Vernon Dam hydro was recently refurbished and upgraded.  I called ISO-NE and Lacey Ryan was kind enough to answer my questions and send me a link  to ISO-NE's position paper on the "Black Start" change.

Basically, with small hydro plants as "Black Start", ISO predicts it will take many hours for the grid to be re-energized.  However, with more large natural gas plants on the grid, using these plants as Black Start plants will bring the grid up sooner.  Natural gas plants can come up to power very quickly, with limited auxiliary equipment.  This is why they are back-ups for wind turbines, and why ISO is designating them as Black Start plants on the New England grid. Much of the information about this choice is on pages 6 to 9 of the ISO document. Starting the grid will be "top down" in the future, with big plants coming on-line first, rather than bottom-up, with small plants first.

Note that plants that raise steam (like nuclear plants) cannot be "black start" plants. It takes time to raise steam.  Combined cycle gas turbines must run open cycle when they operate in black start mode: they can't raise steam either. (Information from ISO document.)

What Does It Mean?

Plant opponents will somehow claim that this shows Vermont Yankee wasn't safe and shouldn't be operated until it gets a new diesel.  That is not the case.  The Vernon Dam plant will be re-classified by ISO-NE, but nothing else has changed. Due to the re-classification, the NRC will also reclassify it and require a new diesel for Vermont Yankee in the future. The NRC's rule is a typical forward-looking safety requirement for the nuclear industry. Things change, and the NRC stays on top of the changes.

However, any time new equipment is required or a new hearing must be held, plant opponents become energized and active.  That's pretty much the only thing wrong with this story.

Acknowledgements

A huge thank you to Howard Shaffer for reading and correcting an earlier version of this draft, and to Lacey Ryan of ISO-NE for her help.  Grid operation is not my strongest knowledge base, and I welcome further comments and corrections from my readers.